Questions and Answers Thursday, 26 October 2006

Questions and Answers Thursday, 26 October
2006

1.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is
the Government doing to further improve the teaching of
mathematics in New Zealand schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY
(Minister of Education): Today I announced that from next
year the Government will fund tuition fees for 600 primary
teachers per year to allow them to undertake postgraduate
study in mathematics. This is the first stage in a scheme
that the Government plans to extend to such areas as
English, science, social studies, and technology to ensure
that teachers have more opportunities to enhance their
knowledge and expertise in important subject areas. The new
scheme recognises that the most important factor in lifting
student achievement is effective teaching backed by strong
investment in professional development.

Moana Mackey: What
else is the Government doing to support professional
development for teachers?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The
Government will invest around $110 million this year in the
professional development of teachers, along with $58 million
for projects that are giving teachers the skills to lift
numeracy and literacy standards for all students. As a
result of this investment, our evaluations are showing major
improvements across all of the 1,700 schools involved, with
the highest improvement amongst students who were previously
the lowest achievers, and a lift in achievement across
Māori and Pacifica students.

Hon Bill English: How does
the Minister tally that rosy view of schools with the
Education Review Office annual report that yesterday told
the nation that 30 percent of schools do not have any
meaningful or useful information about the achievement or
the progress of their students; and will he take any action
on the back of that startling piece of information?

Hon
STEVE MAHAREY: As the member will know, the Education Review
Office is a Government agency, paid for by the taxpayer,
and, of course, we take all of its reports seriously .

Hon
Brian Donnelly: How do New Zealand students currently fare
in international studies on mathematics achievement, and
does the Minister believe that the announced investment will
increase our relative rankings?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is
an excellent question. Our results show that in fact we are
amongst the best in numeracy and mathematics. In the study
of trends in international maths and science, or the IMSS
study as it is known, conducted in 2002-03, New Zealand was
one of only six countries to report a significant
improvement in mathematical achievements between 1994 and
2002. New Zealand’s year 9 mean performance in mathematics
was significantly higher than the international means for 46
countries participating at that educational level. Increases
in maths achievements between 1994 and 2002 were
particularly notable for Māori and Pasifika boys.

Moana
Mackey: What gains to the New Zealand population would there
be if everyone reached a high standard of basic
numeracy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It would, for example, allow
the leader of an organisation that contracted for services
with a broadcaster to understand that the organisation has
to pay GST. If the GST added up to $115,000, and if there
were a fine of $100,000 attached to it, that leader would
know that the organisation had to pay back $215,000.

Rt
Hon Winston Peters: With respect to the comment the Minister
just made, has he received any reports as to the wisdom of
attending a reception being put on by Minister Dunne, titled
“Twenty Years of GST: The Best Path Forward”—one of
the architects of GST being the leader of the National
Party, and the reception being one he could possibly attend
and explain why he has not paid GST back?

Madam SPEAKER:
No, I am sorry, but that question was very wide of the
original question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point
of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, the original question
was on the issue of mathematics, as was the secondary
question. But the point at issue was the use of mathematics
when it relates to things such as taxation. Right then it
was on the floor, and I am begging your indulgence, Madam
Speaker, because a very, very important occasion is coming
up there, with a celebration of 20 years of GST. You will
remember that it had to be “good for you”, which was the
Labour slogan, but my real issue is that if it has to be
“good for you”, then it has to be paid.

Madam SPEAKER:
I thank the member, but I have ruled on the matter. The
member’s question was far too wide of the original
question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of
order—

Madam SPEAKER: It has to be a different point of
order. My tolerance for questioning my rulings is at zero
today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, Madam Speaker, you
should not presume that that is the object of the point of
order. I want to seek the House’s leave, including your
own, to table this invitation, with particular reference to
some members who should be there.

Leave granted.

Ingram
Report—Immigration, Minister’s Statement

2. Dr the Hon
LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of
Immigration: Does he still rely on the Ingram report because
it is an authoritative, comprehensive report written by a
Queen’s Counsel, as he confirmed to the House on
Wednesday, 30 August 2006?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of
Immigration): I still believe that it would be inappropriate
to question the integrity of a Queen’s Counsel who has
produced a report based on the information available to
him.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How wise is the Minister
to rely on the Ingram report, when Noel Ingram states: “I
have found no evidence to support an allegation that Mr
Siriwan or Ms Phanngarm were promised work in New
Zealand.”, when Sunan Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states:
“Taito told me, while I was at his house at Māngere, that
if I come to Samoa to work as a tiler at his house at
Afiomalu, he will get me back to New Zealand with a work
permit.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As has been noted to this
House, there is clearly a conflict of evidence, and that
matter will need to be investigated by the New Zealand
Police.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How wise is the
Minister to rely on the Ingram report, when Noel Ingram QC
concluded that “the evidence does not support a finding
that Mr Field knew that Mr Siriwan was working on his house
at the time he wrote that letter.”—the letter Mr Field
wrote to the Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien
O’Connor, on 18 May 2005—when Mr Siriwan’s sworn
affidavit states: “Taito said to me … he will give me
WS$200 per week for food, and I could live at his new house
in Afiomalu, where I was to work.” and that “Taito had
come to the house at Afiomalu and he saw me on my knees
sanding and levelling the floor to have the floor ready for
tiling. … This was approximately the end of March
2005.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Those are matters that the
police will no doubt investigate. I note that Mr Siriwan had
the opportunity to speak to the inquiry and did not make
those allegations then.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How
wise is the Minister to rely on the Ingram report, when the
Ingram report failed to uncover the facts contained in Mr
Siriwan’s sworn affidavit that, in addition to the “four
months to put tiles in Taito’s house”, he was “asked
to do painting in the whole inside of Taito’s house. This
took two months.”, and that as well as confirming that he
was never paid for the 4 months’ tiling work, he said:
“I confirm that I was never paid for this painting
job”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that it would be
an error of judgment for the member to place reliance upon
contested evidence when the matter is still under
investigation by the New Zealand Police.

Dr the Hon
Lockwood Smith: How wise is the Minister to rely on the
information in the Ingram report, when Noel Ingram failed to
uncover the fact not only that Taito Phillip Field had done
a deal with Mr Siriwan to go to work on Mr Field’s house
in Samoa for no pay but also that in respect of paying for
his air ticket to Samoa, Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit
states that he went to Taito’s house and gave him $400
towards his air fair and “I told Taito that I had already
spent $360 to buy silicon and other water proofing materials
to take with me to Samoa for Taito’s house.”?

Hon
DAVID CUNLIFFE: It would be an error of judgment for the
member to describe as fact matters that are the subject of a
conflict of evidence. To allege so would be to undermine the
police inquiry and to question the integrity of a Queen’s
Counsel.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How wise is the
Minister to rely on the Ingram report, when Mr Sunan
Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “we have not been free
to speak the truth about our situation. … I have never
been free to speak out. I was told what to say to the lawyer
who came from New Zealand to talk to me.”?

Hon DAVID
CUNLIFFE: Those recycled press clippings are now old news,
but—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Again, we are
falling into barracking. The Minister is entitled to be
heard, and other members in the House are entitled to hear
him.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat that those matters are
the subject of a police inquiry. The member may well ask why
the person alleging those matters feels free to speak now,
when he did not feel so free earlier.

Dr the Hon Lockwood
Smith: I seek leave to table the sworn affidavit of Sunan
Siriwan, dated the 26th day of September 2006 and sworn in
front of a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Samoa.

Leave
granted.

Police—Assaults on Officers

3. RON MARK (NZ
First) to the Minister of Police: Does she share the concern
expressed by Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, regarding
the increase in attacks of a serious nature on police, and
what does she consider to be the reason for the increase in
attacks on police?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of
Police): Yes, I am concerned by any assaults on police, but
I am particularly concerned about the serious assaults. No
one can say definitely why there should be an increase in
any particular year, but I know that the police themselves
are concerned about alcohol and drug use and abuse in
society. It is difficult to quantify such factors, though it
is well known that alcohol features in around 70 percent of
incidents requiring police attention.

Ron Mark: Does the
Minister of Police agree with the President of the Police
Association, Greg O’Connor, when he states that focusing
the deployment to the front line of the 1,000 extra police
recruited over the next 3 years will help cut assaults on
police, and has the Government considered the possibility of
increasing the penalties for assaults on police officers, as
suggested by New Zealand First as another means of
deterrent?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I know the Government has
considered the proposal put forward by New Zealand First
regarding penalties. We are very happy to work with New
Zealand First to ensure that the 1,000 new police are,
indeed, on the front line doing a very good job in trying to
reduce violence in this country.

Ann Hartley: What is the
Government doing to make the job of police safer?

Hon
DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No Government can make the job of police
safe. There will always be risks associated with policing.
But a number of initiatives are being taken that aim to
mitigate these risks. These include the roll-out of the
stab-resistant body armour scheduled for implementation
later this year, the current police Taser trial, and the
recruitment of the extra 1,000 front-line sworn
police.

Simon Power: Does the Minister of Police concede
that there is a connection between the 53 percent increase
in serious assaults on police since 1999 and the 26 percent
increase in total violent crime under her watch in light of
the statement by Detective Inspector Steve Rutherford of
Counties-Manukau that “The reality is that violence has
escalated.”, and the fact that police officers are the
ones who deal with these incidents face to face; if not, why
not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The facts are that recorded
crime per 10,000 population is nearly 20 percent down on
that which it was 10 years ago. We acknowledge that we have
been particularly focusing in the area of domestic violence.
We have been catching and convicting more people for violent
offences, and we will continue to do that. The sad reality
is that drugs and alcohol play an increasingly harmful part
in this process, and we hope to do everything we can to
reduce that.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister give an
absolute assurance that there will be no general arming of
the police with guns, and that she will not leave this issue
of whether we end up with Tasers to internal struggles
within the police force?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There is no
enthusiasm and no intent to arm our police force. We are,
however, going through a trial with Taser equipment to try
to offer better protection to police in difficult
situations. That will be an objective assessment and we
await the outcome of that trial.

Ron Mark: Does the
Minister accept that the high number of reported serious
assaults on police is not a true reflection of how many
officers are injured on the job, as many officers who are
assaulted do not report their injuries, and if the Minister
is not aware of that, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am
not aware of any officers not reporting incidents. If the
member has any information I am sure that the Minister of
Police would be happy to accept that and to follow up on
it.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister aware of what Mr Broad was
referring to when he stated that strong forces wanted police
to carry guns if the Taser trial proves unsuccessful, and if
the Taser does prove to be an effective countermeasure, will
she be recommending that Tasers be deployed in every police
car?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I spoke directly with Howard
Broad, the Commissioner of Police, over those words. He
regrets using the words “strong force”. However, he does
acknowledge that the police are hoping the Taser trial is
successful. If it is, I am sure the Minister or the
commissioner will look at deployment of that useful tool
across the country.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a
chart from this year’s annual report of the police,
showing that the recorded assaults on police have not
increased over the past decade.

Leave granted.

Ingram
Report—Work Permits

4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH
(National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Has the
New Zealand Immigration Service received an application for
a work permit from Mr Sunan Siriwan and Ms Aumporn
Phanngarm?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration):
No.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If such applications were
received, would it be relevant information in considering
them that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “My
partner and I wish to apply for work visas to go to New
Zealand as set out in the Minister’s letter. … We waited
and waited and nothing was heard from Taito in regards
lodging of our applications for work visas.”; is it
correct that there was a time limit in the then Associate
Minister’s special direction that the Thais be granted
work visas for New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat
that no application for a work permit has been received from
Mr Siriwan and Ms Aumporn Phanngarm.

Dr the Hon Lockwood
Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister
might choose to repeat what he likes, but the Standing
Orders require him to answer my question. My question asked
for information far beyond whether a work permit application
had been received from Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm.

Madam
SPEAKER: As the member knows, he cannot require a specific
answer to the question. The Minister is obliged to address
the question. His answer did relate to the specific
question.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Would it be relevant
information in consideration of applications for work visas
for Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm that Mr Siriwan’s sworn
affidavit states: “In December 2005, I asked Taito when he
was in Samoa to lodge our visa applications. He told me to
hold off because there have been problems in New Zealand.
… Taito told me not to lodge my work visa just yet, until
he says so.”; has that delay, demanded by Taito Phillip
Field, put the Thai couple beyond the 6-month visa
eligibility period authorised by the then Associate
Minister, Damien O’Connor?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The
member has now corrected himself and addressed the question
to a work visa application. I can confirm that a work visa
application, not a permit application, has been made. As a
former Associate Minister of Immigration he should be able
to tell the difference. No doubt the Immigration Act review
will assist by simplifying that matter.

Dr the Hon
Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The
Standing Orders actually do require a Minister to answer a
question, and the nature of that answer must be that it
addresses the question. For the Minister simply to give any
answer that he may choose is not within the Standing Orders.
I can absolutely assure you, Madam Speaker, that if you
check the Standing Orders, you will see that that is
correct. Standing Order 377 states: “(1) An answer that
seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can
be given consistently with the public interest.” It is a
Standing Order that is often overlooked in this House, but
an answer that seeks to address the question must be
given.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order,
I understand that it is accepted in this House that a
Minister is not responsible for the accuracy or veracity of
the question that is being posed. These matters are matters
of law and policy and it is incumbent upon the member to get
the accuracy of his question right.

Madam SPEAKER: The
Minister is obliged to address the question consistent with
the Standing Order the member quoted. However, the Minister
did address the specific question that was asked, and the
subsequent questions he also addressed. So would the member
like to continue.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When
considering the applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm,
will consideration be given to the fact that Mr Siriwan and
Ms Phanngarm followed the directions set out in then
Associate Minister Damien O’Connor’s letter of 23 June
authorising that they be issued with work visas, and
obtained their police clearances from Thailand, got their
medical checks, paid Taito Phillip Field $2,000 in cash for
Ms Phanngarm’s removal costs, but held off lodging their
visa applications because, as set out in Mr Sirirwan’s
affidavit: “Taito told me not to lodge my work visa
application … He told me to hold off because there have
been problems in New Zealand.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It
would be quite inappropriate for a Minister of Immigration
to comment on an application that was still under active
consideration by the department.

Dr the Hon Lockwood
Smith: Would it be relevant information in considering the
applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm that Mr
Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states that, after Taito Phillip
Field recently gave him 1,000 tala in cash: “Taito told
both of us twice that day, that if police from New Zealand
come to Samoa to talk to us, we must tell the police from
New Zealand: that Sunan and Aumporn did no work at Taito’s
house and did no tiling. Taito told us to tell the New
Zealand police that we never worked at Taito’s house; we
must tell police that we worked outside; we must tell the
police that we did not see Taito at his home.”; would that
kind of manipulation by a Labour member of Parliament be
helpful or unhelpful to Mr Siriwan’s or Ms Phanngarm’s
applications?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Without wishing to
pre-empt in any way the consideration by the department, I
observe that it may be pointless for Ms Woodroffe to be
representing the people concerned when Dr Smith is
attempting to prosecute the case through the House of
Representatives. His attempt to do so reminds me of a
comment in the Dominion Post on 25 October 2003 describing
as amateurish the attempts of Dr Lockwood Smith to support
Dr Don Brash in his coup attempt. It stated: “National
values confidence”—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. Would
the Minister please be seated. That was not relevant to the
question.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When considering the
immigration applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm—in
addition to their New Zealand - born child— would it be
relevant information that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit
states that as a result of working for Taito Phillip Field
for many months for no pay, he now has nothing: “I gave
Taito my last NZ$2,000 that I had from New Zealand. I sold
my gold chain before I left New Zealand so I had money to
bring with me to Samoa. Now I have nothing.”; would that
kind of exploitation by a Labour member of Parliament be
helpful or unhelpful to Mr Siriwan’s and Ms Phanngarm’s
applications?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It would be
inappropriate of me to comment on an application still under
consideration by the department.

Dr the Hon Lockwood
Smith: I seek leave to table the affidavit of I’o A
Tuakeu-Lindsay confirming the Thai translation services
received by Mr Sunan Siriwan and Aumporn Phanngarm, sworn on
17 October 2006 in front of a solicitor of the Supreme Court
of Samoa.

Leave granted.

Climate Change
Policies—Reports

5. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton
West) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues:
What recent reports, if any, has he received on increasing
support for the Government’s climate change
policies?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for
Climate Change Issues): I have had reports that the
Labour-led Government has gathered significant support for
its approach to climate change. We welcome the consistent
and principled support of the Greens, of United Future, and
of the Māori Party. We also welcome the recent conversion
of the National Party, which, despite stridently opposing
the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill at its first
reading, at the Commerce Committee, and during the election
campaign, has done yet another flip-flop. Last night it
supported the essentially un-amended bill in its second
reading in the House.

Martin Gallagher: Can the Minister
explain why the Government’s policies are garnering public
support at this time?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because they
encourage Kiwis to do the sensible things they are believe
are good for them and our country: initiatives like
improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles, improved
insulation, and solar water heating, to name but three. The
Permanent Forest Sink Initiative ties in with the policies
the Government has in place to respond to climate change.
That initiative will also improve water quality and give new
business opportunities for landowners. If, however, the
member is asking me how National could have credibly opposed
that bill previously, I am afraid that I cannot supply the
answer to that.

Madam SPEAKER: No, the Minister cannot
comment on National’s policy.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can
he claim that there is increased support for the
Government’s climate change policies when everyone, from
Government officials to Greenpeace to the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment, says that the Government
has no policy and has no idea how it will meet its Kyoto
Protocol targets, and when its key policies on the carbon
tax, the “fart tax”, the energy efficiency strategy, the
negotiated greenhouse agreements, and the projects to reduce
emissions in forestry have all been put on hold or
canned?

Hon DAVID PARKER: How that member would love that
to be true and for the situation to be as grim as that. It
is not. We are taking a principled approach to it. I remind
the House—

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Hon DAVID PARKER: I
remind the House that in the first reading of the Climate
Change Response Amendment Bill, John Key said: “I rise on
behalf of the National Party to give the good news to the
people of New Zealand—that is, the Climate Change Response
Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party
will not be supporting it, for very, very good reasons
indeed.” Well, it looks as though John Key is another
member of the club of climate change
“Donny-come-latelys”—or perhaps he is the next
johnny-come-lately—but nevertheless, we welcome—

Hon
Dr Nick Smith: How is this in order? I raise a point of
order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: Would members
please be silent. I cannot hear the answer to the question,
I say to Dr Smith. So if that is his point of order—I do
not want to pre-empt it, but if it is—I would ask the
Minister to address the question without
editorialising.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I will read from Hansard
in respect of the first reading of the bill, when John Key
said—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam
Speaker. The Standing Order requires that the Minister
address the question. I would love to quote the full
brilliant speech of my colleague John Key, but that was not
my question. My question was—and perhaps you would like me
to repeat it—

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, please.

Hon Dr Nick
Smith: —how can he claim that there is increased support
for the Government’s climate change policies, when
everyone, from his own officials to Greenpeace and even to
the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, says
that the Government has no policy and has no idea how it
will meet its Kyoto Protocol targets, and when its key
policies on the carbon tax, the “fart tax”, the energy
efficiency strategy, the negotiated greenhouse agreements,
and the projects to reduce emissions in forestry have all
been put on hold or canned?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The
Minister’s reply was that in the previous reading Mr Key
described the bill as very stupid and useless, etc., and
that last night the Opposition voted for it. Therefore, of
course, support for the Government’s policies has
increased.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister was
attempting to address the question. If we have a new
supplementary question, I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon
Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Could you clarify for me whether Dr Cullen is the
“Minister of Everything” or whether David Parker is the
Minister, because we on this side of the House are a bit
confused.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as
the member knows. The Minister was talking to the point of
order. Would the member please be seated if he wishes to
remain in this Chamber. The Minister was clarifying a point;
it is not unusual to do so through points of order. Can we
start again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of
order, Madam Speaker. Mr Smith has already had the number of
supplementary questions that would require you to invite my
colleague to ask the next supplementary question. I do not
want to make a complaint here, but if I thought for a moment
that someone regarded the National Party as having more
rights than my party does, then I would protest. I am not at
that point now, but I am just making the issue very clear
that my colleague Peter Brown should be the next person to
be called.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member is quite right;
I apologise.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that
four of the world’s worst offenders when it comes to
greenhouse gas emissions are the USA, China, India, and
Australia, all of which are building, or planning to build,
more coal-fired power stations, two of which will not sign
the Kyoto Protocol, and the other two of which are exempt
until 2012; if he does accept that, does he believe we must
keep things in perspective and inform the public of New
Zealand that anything we do down here will, on a global
basis, have only a minimal effect?

Eric Roy: I raise a
point of order, Madam Speaker. In relation to my colleague
Nick Smith having his call taken away, I refer you to
Speaker’s ruling 25/4—

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very
much. I do not need any assistance on this matter. I called
the member; I saw him. The matter is over.

Hon DAVID
PARKER: I agree with the member to the extent that it is
true that countries like China and India are building
thermal electricity generation capacity, and that in order
for the world to get over the challenge of climate change,
it will be necessary for countries like China and India to
also moderate their emissions. None the less, it also
remains true that countries like the United States are
taking measures to reduce their emissions. Countries like
New Zealand actually have higher emission rates than those
countries, and it is important that wealthy countries like
ours do our bit.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If the Government’s
policies on climate change have been so successful, why have
New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions increased under
this Government at a faster rate than that of any other OECD
country, at three times the rate of Australia and at four
times the rate of the United States, and why has New Zealand
simultaneously achieved in 2005 the first year of net
deforestation in 46 years; if that is success, for God’s
sake will the Minister tell me what failure would look
like?

Hon DAVID PARKER: One of the mains reasons why New
Zealand’s emissions have grown since 1990 is that the
thermal power capacity that the country had already built
has been utilised more of the time, instead of New Zealand
building more hydro capacity.

Gordon Copeland: Has the
Government, in developing its climate change policy, given
any thought to a humanitarian resettlement plan for
countries such as Tokelau, Tuvalu, and Kiribati, which are
likely to disappear as sea levels rise; if so, what is that
policy; if not, does the Minister agree that it needs to
happen in association with our Pacific neighbours?

Hon
DAVID PARKER: The Government is beginning to give
consideration to those issues. They are still away from us
in the future, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs is taxed
with them. They are difficult issues; they are real,
potential consequences of climate change. Indeed, recent
reports out of both Australia and the United Kingdom are
making increasing reference to the security implications of
climate change if we do not get it under control, because
the number of people who could be on the move worldwide, as
a consequence of increases in sea levels, is measured in
millions, not thousands.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave
of the House to table the advice of the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment on 10 October this year,
which states: “It is our view that there is currently a
policy vacuum in climate change.”

Leave
granted.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister aware of the
repeated calls, particularly since March this year, of the
climate change science community, the academic community,
the non-governmental organisations, and the general public
for this Parliament to reach a cross-party agreement on the
fundamentals of climate change policy, so that we can take
the country forwards rather than look backwards; if he is
aware of that, what steps has he taken to attempt to reach
some cross-party agreements, and what response has he had to
his efforts?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Following the recent change
of heart by the National Party in respect of climate change
issues, those questions have been put to me both in the
House and outside the House. I respond now, as I have
responded previously: we believe we are developing sound
policy in response to the climate change challenge. I think
it reflects well on the National Party that it backed the
Climate Change Response Amendment Bill yesterday in the
House. I think we are getting closer to reaching agreement
across the House as to what the appropriate price-based
measures are in the electricity sector. I look forward to
the contributions of all parties to the development of these
policies, and, of course, to the processes of Parliament,
including select committee processes and the very extensive
consultation processes that we have running around these
policies. Those avenues enable parties to come
together.

Ingram Report—Prime Minister's Statement

6.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime
Minister: Does she still maintain that the Ingram report was
“very comprehensive and thorough”; if not, why
not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister):
Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Prime Minister tell this
House, and the New Zealand public, why they should have any
confidence in her Government and the findings of the Ingram
report, given the evidence that Sunan Siriwan was told by
Taito Phillip Field to lie if he was questioned by the New
Zealand Police; and is that acceptable behaviour for a
Labour member of her Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN:
Any allegations can be considered by the police. Mr Siriwan
was, of course, interviewed by Mr Ingram.

Gerry Brownlee:
Does the Prime Minister now accept that Mr Siriwan did not
speak to Noel Ingram QC because he was under such extreme
pressure from Taito Phillip Field not to speak to Noel
Ingram QC?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Siriwan had the
opportunity to speak to the inquiry.

Gerry Brownlee: Does
the Prime Minister accept that the Ingram report is full of
gaping holes because she refused to give Noel Ingram extra
powers of investigation when he asked for them, and because
potential witnesses were not assisted with independent legal
advice; and was that because the last thing she wanted was
for the truth about Taito Phillip Field’s activities to be
uncovered by the investigation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No,
no, and no.

Gerry Brownlee: Does she think it is
acceptable for Taito Phillip Field, a member of her
Government, to attempt to obstruct the police investigation
into his activities; if not, what specific actions will she
take as a result of the information that has become public
today?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Any new allegations and
evidence can be referred to the police and considered by
them.

Gerry Brownlee: Why, despite all of the information
that has now come to light, does the Prime Minister continue
to express confidence in Taito Phillip Field as a member of
Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Field is on leave
and the police are undertaking an investigation. Unlike the
members opposite, we are not going to direct the police as
to their conclusions.

Paritutu Dioxin Serum
Study—Errors

7. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party)
to the Minister of Health: What advice has the Minister
received about the nature of the significant errors
identified by independent forensic accountant John Leonard
in the Ministry of Health’s Paritutu dioxin serum
study?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I have
received advice that the report of the forensic accountant
contradicts the findings of the study conducted by
Environmental Science and Research that was peer reviewed by
scientists at the United States Centers for Disease Control,
the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Massey University
New Zealand, and Hatfield Consultants in Canada. However,
John Leonard has made serious claims and I have instructed
the Ministry of Health to have his report independently
reviewed. I can advise the House that this review will be
carried out by Dr Allan Smith of the University of
California at Berkeley.

Tariana Turia: Why did the
Minister fail to investigate the serious anomalies with the
Paritutu dioxin serum study 1 year ago when they were
brought to his attention in a letter dated 7 October
2005?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I receive some thousands of
letters a year and I am afraid I do not recall that one. But
I will say that the Government has every interest in making
sure that accurate information is made available to the
people of Paritutu and indeed to the wider public.

Barbara
Stewart: Has his ministry considered carrying out DNA tests,
similar to those on Agent Orange victims, in order to
conclusively identify the effects of exposure to the dioxin;
if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My understanding, and I
am going from memory, is that Dr Neil Pearce from Massey
University is conducting further investigations into various
chemicals, including dioxin, and that attached to his study
are some DNA disruption studies.

Maryan Street: How does
the Minister respond to claims that anonymised data from
individual patients was withheld from the international peer
reviewers of the Environmental Research and Science report,
and does he agree that these claims are very serious?

Hon
PETE HODGSON: I do agree that they are serious claims, and I
am pleased therefore to inform the House that they are
wrong. The anonymised data in question was provided to the
international peer reviewers. It has so far been withheld
from public release, due to privacy concerns from some in
the community and from the ethics committee that approved
the study. Regardless, serious claims have been made about
the Environmental Science and Research report and I have, as
I said in my primary answer, instructed the Ministry of
Health to analyse them and respond as soon as
possible.

Sue Kedgley: Would he like to use this as an
opportunity right now, in the House today, to offer an
apology to affected New Zealanders for the physical and
emotional suffering they have endured as a result of
successive Governments subsidising 2,4,5-T, encouraging its
widespread use, and, long after it had been banned in most
other countries of the world, for allowing it to be
manufactured right next to a residential area, and for
downplaying, denying, and falsely reassuring residents about
the health effects of dioxin; if not, why not?

Hon PETE
HODGSON: The events over the past four or five decades have
certainly been a chapter of interesting changes of viewpoint
and, indeed, probably reflect not only changes in New
Zealand society over that time but also changes in our view
of what is an acceptable risk. Clearly, what happened then
is not acceptable now.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of
order, Madam Speaker. I explicitly asked the Minister
whether he would apologise to the affected residents. The
Minister did not answer my question.

Madam SPEAKER: I
think he addressed the question, but if he wishes to make
his answer explicit he may do so.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me
say, uncomplicatedly, that I do not feel entitled to
apologise for 4 ½ decades of activity by a series of
industries—that is to say, the primary sector, a series of
chemical companies such as Dow and its variously named
subsidiaries—and a series of Governments. I am, myself, a
person who got through university by spraying an awful lot
of gorse. I have no idea what my dioxin level is, but I bet
it ain’t that good!

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of
order, Madam Speaker. The Government felt able to make an
apology to Vietnam veterans—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not
a point of order, as the member knows.

Hon Harry
Duynhoven: Can the Minister confirm that an independent
review, as he has outlined, will be done, and that if that
review of the existing data shows a need for further
investigation, a longitudinal study tracking down the
residents who were in the Paritutu area at the time of
highest exposures is likely to follow?

Hon PETE HODGSON:
It is such a study that is under contest; that study has
already been carried out. What I am reviewing—as I am sure
the member would want, given that he represents the
residents in question—is whether John Leonard’s
independent forensic accounting expertise was accurate. In
either case, I will happily make that information
public.

Tariana Turia: What has changed between October
2005, when the Minister denied in writing that there was any
evidence of data manipulation to cover up dioxin exposure
levels, and the New Zealand Press Association’s report of
Tuesday, 24 October, in which the Minister is quoted as
saying: “It's clear that there's room for doubt so we
better have another look…”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: What has
changed is that there was a very long television programme,
which spent a very long time telling the public of New
Zealand that a gentleman thinks there has been a mistake.
The gentleman raises valid questions. The fact that he did
not know that this stuff had already been peer reviewed
several times is perhaps a reflection on the television
company. Nonetheless, valid questions have been raised, and
we will take another look at the issue.

Sue Kedgley: Will
the Government now honour a promise made by Don Matheson, a
public health official at the Ministry of Health, to
residents at a public meeting in New Plymouth 4 years ago
that if there was proof that Dow caused the problem, the
Government would initiate legal proceedings against Dow; if
the Government will not, does the Minister acknowledge that
that will send a terrible message to multinational
corporations that they can come to New Zealand, pollute our
local environment, poison our local residents, and get away
scot-free?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am sorry that I am unable
to confirm that that undertaking was made 4 years ago. As to
whether the Government should take anyone to court, an
immediate question is what we can charge them with. As I
recall, in my legal advice to date, I do not know of any law
that was broken at the time. If, on the other hand, the
member has legal advice to the contrary, I would be pleased
to receive it.

Tariana Turia: Will the Minister now
undertake to review the—[Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Even you
heard that outrageous comment from Nick Smith. In light of
what he said, he should be asked to leave the House.

Madam
SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. I notice that he has the next
question, and he should stay—[Interruption]—no, that was
a disorderly intervention and the member knows that. The
member should stay until his question is answered.

Hon
Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could
you just explain to us the basis on which that intervention
was any more disorderly than any number of interjections
that have been made during question time today? It was not
made during a question, it was not made during a point of
order, it was not unparliamentary, but I suppose it could be
said that it was personal, because it was aimed at one
member of Parliament. But I would say that in the common
sense of almost all members here today, that intervention
was no different from any other today.

Madam SPEAKER: I
take the member’s point, and it was raised yesterday,
which is why I am making this ruling. A member was on her
feet asking a question, and there was an interchange across
the Chamber that was not directed to the question but that
was interfering with the person asking the question. That is
the basis for that ruling. I want members, please, to show
courtesy and respect. Interjections are fine when on the
question, but that one was not on the question. It was a
gratuitous comment that was put across the Chamber. That is
the basis of that ruling.

Tariana Turia: Will the
Minister now undertake to review the Taranaki District
Health Board’s August 2002 birth defects study, as was
recommended, in light of the new evidence in John
Leonard’s report?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If the evidence in
John Leonard’s report stacks up when reviewed by Dr Allan
Smith of the University of California at Berkeley, then I
think that the Government does need to consider Dr Smith’s
report when it is received.

Tariana Turia: I seek leave to
table a letter of 7 October 2005 from Andrew Gibbs to the
Hon Pete Hodgson, and a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson to
Andrew Gibbs in response to Mr Gibbs’ letter of 7 October
2005.

Leave granted.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table
a letter from Annette King to Andrew Gibbs, where the
Minister says that all the monitoring and investigation
carried out around the Ivon Watkins-Dow issue showed there
was no significant exposure of dioxins into the local
population, which is completely erroneous.

Leave
granted.

Whangamata Marina Decision—Conservation,
Minister's Statements

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH
(National—Nelson) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he
stand by his answers to questions in the House on 14 March
2006 in regard to the Whangamata marina, in which he stated
“I followed due process” and “I followed the legal
process under the Resource Management Act”?

Hon CHRIS
CARTER (Minister of Conservation): In general, yes, but I
accept the court’s advice.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can
the Minister possibly tell the House that “In general,
yes,” he did follow the law and due process, when the High
Court found his decision “unfair”, and “in breach of
the common law standards of natural justice” and that
there was more than one error of law; will he now apologise
to the Whangamata Marina Society for his repeated breaches
of the law? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: If members wish
to hear the Minister’s answer, would they please enable
him to be heard in silence.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I, too,
would like to quote the court. Justice Fogarty stated:
“There are no findings in this judgment which would
warrant an extraordinary direction by this Court that the
present Minister of Conservation should not continue to be
seized of this case. The errors identified can be corrected
… clearing a way for reconsideration by this
Minister.”

Charles Chauvel: Who will make the final
decision about whether to grant the two restricted coastal
activity permits required under the Resource Management Act
for the Whangamata marina?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would note
that Judge Fogarty said in his judgment that my decision was
not biased, predetermined, or irrational, and he directed me
to remake my decision using a better process. After careful
thought, I decided it was important to remove any suggestion
of predetermination in a new decision taken by me.
Accordingly, I have delegated the authority to make a new
decision to my colleague David Benson-Pope, the Minister for
the Environment, who is in charge of the Resource Management
Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister, in his
statement on 19 September following the High Court decision,
say that he would be making the final decision on Whangamata
but then, on 12 October, in the exact hour in which the
Auditor-General dropped his explosive report on Labour’s
illegal campaign spending, announce he would pass the
decision to David Benson-Pope; why did he hide the decision
that way—was it that he was so embarrassed that he had
been rolled by Dover Samuels and his caucus?

Hon CHRIS
CARTER: At no point during the period before I delegated the
decision did I say I had come to a decision. I said I was
considering it. And, of course, unlike that member I do not
have a contempt of court ruling against me.

Hon Dr Nick
Smith: Why should mum and dad taxpayers have to foot the
bill of up to $250,000 awarded by the High Court in costs to
the Whangamata Marina Society on top of the $150,000 his
unlawful decision has cost Crown Law in its defence; and, if
the taxpayer is to foot this $400,000 total bill for his
illegal conduct, is not resigning the honourable thing to
do?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Once again, that member illustrates
his freedom with terminology. At no point did Justice
Fogarty say my decision was unlawful. I guess that is why
that member is currently before the courts being sued for
$15 million for libel.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he tell
the House that the court did not find he had acted
unlawfully when it said that he had made an error of law;
what is the difference?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I repeat that
Justice Fogarty said that I was still able to make the
decision and that I had not acted unlawfully.

Hon Dr Nick
Smith: Will his Government support National’s proposition
to remove the Minister of Conservation’s veto over such
consents, noting that in over 400-plus consents considered
by Ministers since 1991 only once has a Minister overturned
a decision of the Environment Court—and that was
subsequently overturned by the High Court—and, further,
that this High Court decision makes the Minister’s
discretion very narrow and that this additional ministerial
step just adds delay to the consenting process; would it not
be better just to respect the decisions of the Environment
Court?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What an extraordinary question
that is from a member of a previous National Government that
brought in the Resource Management Act and put these very
provisions in it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of
the House—noting that the Minister has tried to tell the
House that he did not act unlawfully—to table, in order
that members may read it, Judge Fogarty’s report, in which
he found the Minister of Conservation breached the law on
three different counts.

Leave granted.

Local
Government—Youth Involvement

9. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to
the Minister of Youth Affairs: What is the Government doing
to increase opportunities for young people to be engaged at
a local government level?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of
Youth Affairs): The Youth in Local Government conference
recently held in New Plymouth is just one example of
initiatives supported by the Government—

Madam SPEAKER:
There is chipping across the Chamber. David Bennett, you are
on your last warning. It is what causes disorder in this
House, and I have been asked to keep order. [Interruption]
It was not to the Minister; it was across the Chamber. The
member is on his last warning.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise
a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been asked to exit
the House because, during a question from a
member—

Madam SPEAKER: The member is quite right. Please
go, David Bennett, in the interests of consistency—

Hon
Dr Nick Smith: No, that is not the point, Madam
Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, he should go anyway.

Hon
Dr Nick Smith: No, Madam Speaker, you seem to have a bias
whereby you are very keen to kick National members out. The
reality is that Winston Peters, while a member was asking a
question in circumstances identical to mine, made an
interjection, and he should be asked to leave the House on
the—

Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member. If he did
that, then he should go, too. You both should go. That is
what is causing disorder in this House. It is not related to
the debate, at all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I most
certainly did not. Nanaia Mahuta is the answerer of the
question. She was on her feet when I said “See you,
Nick.” The reality is that that is not offensive under the
Standing Orders or any prior rulings.

Hon Dr Michael
Cullen: I want to raise that Dr Nick Smith is still in the
House. He left the House, having been told to do so, and
came back in to raise a point of order. Members cannot come
back into the House, having been ordered out, because they
feel like having a point of order. I am afraid that he is
not here on a legal basis at the present time.

Madam
SPEAKER: Please be seated. No, he is not. Would the member
please leave until the end of question time.

Hon Dr Nick
Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a
point of order, Madam Speaker. When Dr Smith was exiting the
Chamber, as you required him to do, there was an
intervention by Mr Peters, who said “See you later,
Nick.” That is a complete contradiction; he has just
admitted he said it, and he is still here. He should go,
too.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree. [Interruption] No, I am sorry
but I have ruled on this—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No,
hang on—

Madam SPEAKER: No, do not challenge my ruling.
Do that at your peril. I want both the Rt Hon Winston Peters
and David Bennett to please leave the Chamber. The only way
we are going to get order here is if, in fact, we stick to
the Standing Orders. It is this chipping across the House
that is causing the problem at the moment. Please leave the
Chamber until the end of question time.

David Bennett
withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise
a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Is it a
new point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a new
point of order; I will leave but I want to make this point
of order. Is it your precedent now that one cannot make a
comment when a speaker is on his or her feet as a Minister
in reply? Because that is new. That is the offence with
which I am being charged now, falsely, by Mr Tisch. He knows
full well that when they started out the allegation was that
I said what I said during a member asking the question. That
was wrong. Nanaia Mahuta had well started her answer when I
said what I said—and I do not deny it. But you will
remember this: as he walked out he said “Stay awake,
Winston.”, which is where the whole thing started in the
first place.

Madam SPEAKER: That is precisely the problem
in this House. It is people having private conversations and
exchanging abuse across this House. We have to get some
semblance of order, and I have been asked to do it. The
Standing Orders state that we respond to questions and
answers. I will ask the Minister, the Hon Nanaia—

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
have asked you a question.

Madam SPEAKER: No, you are
going out for—not that. It is because of the chipping, not
because of being on your feet. But please leave the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon
NANAIA MAHUTA: The Youth in Local Government Conference
recently held in New Plymouth is just one example of
initiatives supported by the Government that encourage young
people to have a real and positive role in decision making
in their community. Sixty-eight young people from youth
councils, at least nine mayors, and several councillors from
all over New Zealand attended the conference. It was an
opportunity for young people in councils to share
information and ideas concerning young people.

Sue
Moroney: How does this contribute to the Government’s
vision for young people contained in the Youth Development
Strategy Aotearoa?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: This strategy is
about supporting opportunities for young people to be the
best they can be: healthy, confident, connected, vibrant,
and resilient. The Youth in Local Government Conference is
an example of how young people develop the skills and
attitudes they need to make a positive contribution to their
community. By encouraging young people’s participation at
a local government level they are valued, and they have an
opportunity to express their opinions and ideas and to
contribute to community decision-making.

Question
Time

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety):
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise an
issue, which is, I think, a very important one for the House
to consider, and that is the events that just happened
during the past question. I did not want to interrupt my
colleague the Minister in her answers, but I think there is
a really important issue of order here that is worthy of
your consideration and the consideration of the
House.

Madam SPEAKER: Please come to the point.

Hon
HARRY DUYNHOVEN: The point I am making is this. Last week I
was asked to remove myself from the House because I,
apparently, had interjected on what I had thought was a
speech but actually was a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER:
Points of order are heard in silence, remember.

Hon HARRY
DUYNHOVEN: I left immediately but, on my way out, let the
whip know that I was the duty Minister. Later in the
afternoon, because I, apparently, had delayed leaving, it
was asked that I be named, which was a complete and utter
surprise to me. I find it absolutely incredible that a
member goes to leave the House, then comes back to argue the
point with you on a point of order. I know that you have
dealt with it, but I think it is an issue in
terms—

Madam SPEAKER: That is precisely the point—I
have dealt with it. Please be seated.

High
Country—Farming

10. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the
Minister for Land Information: Does he stand by his
statement that “The government is committed to high
country farming that is environmentally sustainable and
economically viable”; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER
(Minister for Land Information): Yes.

Hon David Carter: As
the Armstrong report is an interim report and has been
disregarded by the Government, will Donn Armstrong now be
asked to present a final report?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I
do not envisage engaging Mr Armstrong any further. The Crown
charges its high country lessees at an annual rate of 2
percent if paid on time on the land value, excluding
improvements. The 1982 Clayton report dealt with Crown
pastoral leases and stated that that rate of return to Crown
was more than generous to lessees. It noted that discounts
are often capitalised into value by the farmers who get the
discount, and it also stated that charging on the basis of
land value excluding improvements, and a percentage thereof,
was preferable to a rental based on carrying capacity.

Hon
Marian Hobbs: Why is the Government having discussions with
high country farmers about the impacts of rent
increases?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Crown wants a
fair financial return on its high country land both by way
of rent and in valuation of its interest during tenure
review. But it is not the intention of the Government to
make rents unaffordable, which is why the Government is
discussing with high country farmers ways to achieve rental
outcomes that are fair, reasonable, and durable for both
parties. Rents set in accordance with the law at higher
levels will be affordable for many, but may be unaffordable
for some. Possible options for those for whom it is
unaffordable include rent reductions in return for
additional sustainable management contributions such as pest
and weed control or improved public access.

Jacqui Dean:
Is he satisfied that the high country farmers in the South
Island have been good custodians of the land since
1948—yes or no?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Overall, yes. But that
does not mean to say that they should get it for
nothing.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister aware that
under current leases farmers’ income can be derived only
from grazing, and does he argue that a sheep with a view
will grow more wool than a sheep without a view?

Hon DAVID
PARKER: Yes, I am aware that that is the restriction on land
use, but I am also aware that the bundle of rights that is
enjoyed and protected by lessees goes further than pure
pastoralism, and includes rights of exclusive occupation,
which is why one of the remedies for those lessees for whom
rents may be unaffordable is that they give up some of those
rights but retain their rights of pastoralism.

Hon David
Carter: Will the Minister confirm today that the valuers
acting for Land Information New Zealand were instructed on
13 October this year to immediately apply amenity values to
valuations, and if that is the case, what is the purpose of
the Minister’s sham consultation round that he now
promises the high country farmers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The
round of consultation is not about what the law requires me
to do; it is about the consequences of that for lessees.

Hon David Carter: Why does the Government want to set
high country rents according to their views and not income,
yet sets State house rentals for a multimillion-dollar house
in Ōrākei with views over Auckland harbour on the basis of
income and not its views?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member
makes an interesting comparison. It does seem somewhat
strange that a property of thousands of hectares would have
the same rent as a State house.

Physical Activity—Push
Play Day

11. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister for
Sport and Recreation: What action is being taken in the
lead-up to national Push Play Day on 3 November to get more
New Zealanders physically active?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN
(Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Sport
and Recreation: Sport and Recreation New Zealand is
currently running Push Play Nation, a campaign that aims to
increase awareness of physical activity and to encourage New
Zealanders to form a habit of being physically active. The
media campaign provides ideas on how to be active, including
in the workplace. It culminates in Push Play Day on Friday,
3 November, with activities running in regions around the
country. Of course, members opposite believe that if people
get a tax cut they do not need to engage in physical
activity.

Dianne Yates: What reports has he seen on
initiatives to encourage greater physical activity in the
workplace?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A number of such
proposals are around, but I have also heard a suggestion
that in this workplace—Parliament Buildings—attempts to
make exercise facilities available to all staff are being
frustrated by members opposite, particularly by one who
reportedly used to coach rugby at St Bede’s College by
driving his car along the sideline in order to avoid
walking.

Child Support—Highly-paid Debtors

12. JUDITH
COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Revenue:
Can he confirm media reports that state that almost 400
dads, on salaries of $100,000 or more, owe $6.3 million in
child support?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I
can confirm that 387 persons are in that category. They owe
around $4 million in child support payments, with a further
$2.25 million owed in outstanding penalties.

Judith
Collins: What estimates has the Minister been given of the
number of wealthy fathers who are hiding their income and
assets to avoid supporting their children?

Hon PETER
DUNNE: I do not have an estimate of the actual number, but I
can tell the House that the Child Support Amendment Bill (No
4), which was recently passed, and which the member’s
party opposed, gave us the capacity to initiate reviews of
people’s affairs in order to catch people who employ
trusts and other devices for precisely that purpose.

Paula
Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that three-quarters of all
liable parents are currently not meeting their child support
commitments, and that his way of reducing that debt is to
write it off?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The answer is yes and no.
Three-quarters of people are not meeting their commitments.
We made a change that gives us the capacity, if they enter
into arrangements, to write off the penalty owed, not the
principal payment owed to the custodial parent. I need to
make the point, for the benefit of the member, that the
penalty payments have never been paid to the children
concerned. It is actually revenue, if one likes, that is
collected. It is far better to enter into arrangements where
some child support is paid to those who require it, rather
than continue the situation where we were getting none at
all.

Paula Bennett: Why would wealthy people who have
never met their child support commitments in the past
suddenly become responsible parents once those penalties
have been written off?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member is
getting it back to front. The position is that their
penalties will be written off only if they enter into
arrangements. She seems to be putting the cart before the
horse. The point I made in response to an earlier question
is also relevant here. For the first time now, Child Support
and the Inland Revenue Department have the capacity to look
into people’s affairs in that situation, if they are using
other mechanisms to shield income and thereby reduce their
liability.

Judith Collins: Has the Minister considered
stopping indebted liable parents at the border before they
go on their overseas trips, to prevent them from leaving the
country when they have outstanding child support payments;
if not, why not?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I have asked officials
to look into that for me and give me a report, which I am
expecting to receive fairly shortly.

Judith Collins: When
is the Minister going to get tough on the delinquent fathers
who turn up in our electorate offices, whingeing on because
they have to pay $14 a week for their three children, and
telling us that their rights come first; when will he get
tough, for those kids?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I have no
tolerance at all for people who abscond on their
responsibilities. The legislation that was passed recently
gives us a mechanism to get tougher with them. I have
indicated in response to questions this afternoon that other
measures are under consideration. I simply say to all liable
parents that they have obligations, and we expect them to
meet
them.

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>